The Sun. — London, England, 1836-05-31 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. Mr. Grove Price has very prudently withdrawn his notice. Why he should have been so ill advised as to give it is the wonder. That the reform of the Lords is as proper a subject for discussion as any which could come before a House of Commons will only be questioned by men in utter ignorance of the very object of legislation. Lord John Russell ob served that " it is certainly my opinion, that as it is the undoubted right of this House to introduce Bills to regulate the succession to the Crown, and to reform the representation of the people in Parliament, so likewise it is the undoubted right of this House to in troduce, and to favour if it shall think fit, Bills respecting what is called a reform, but which I do not consider a re form, in the other branch of the legislature." His Lord ship rallied the Hon. Member on his having taken the advice of the Right Rev. Prelates of the Church, as it would have been a bad compliment to those Right Rev. Prelates, if the House, after entertaining a mo tion for the removal of the Bishops from the House of Lords, had declared that they could not entertain a motion for a reform among the lay Lords. It may be thought that we have bestowed more attention on the notice of Mr. Grove Price than its importance de served, as no Hon. Member could do 'otherwise than cover with ridicule a proposition involving an abnega tion of the very principle which lies at the bottom of all constitutional legislation. It is quite clear the ob ject of a legislature is to make laws ; and if, from any defect in the machinery, that object is defeated, common sense tells us that the defect should be remedied. If, for instance, the consent of the King, Lords, and Commons be necessary to the 'making a law, and it. should happen that King, Lords, or Commons refuse to act, the machinery is necessarily at a stand-still, and means must be taken to remove the impediment. To declare that any branch of the Legislature shall in no case be liable to be questioned by the others, is to proclaim a principle essentially ar bitrary and tyrannical. But, absurd as was the notice of Mr. Grove Price, there were not wanting individuals, who ought to have known better, to abet him in his folly. Loid John Russell, while he did not hesitate to expose the absurdity of the notice, took the opportunity of declaring that it was his intention , whenever it came forward, to oppose the motion of the Honourable and Learned Member for Kil kenny, as he did not consider what he called a reform to be really a reform in the constitution of the other branch of the Legislature. We hope his Lordship did not mean, by this declaration, to say that the constitution of the Lords does not require re form, but merely that the particular reform which has been proposed by Mr. O'Connell in his letter, is objec tionable. That his Lordship is satisfied with the con duct of the majority of the Lords, or that he enter tains any sanguine hopes of their amendment, we can not for a moment believe. There is at the bottom of the collision between the Lords and Commons much more than a difference of unbiassed opinion. The Lords are obviously governed by interests irrecon eileable with the interests of the people of England ; and, sooner or later, it will be found necessary to pace their Lordships under such a responsibility to the people as shall secure the nation against the influence which is now found so detrimental to the StatL— Morning Chronicle. There are times when Reform as well as Conserva tive Members may enjoy their otizun cum dignitate, or, in other words, be present or absent from a debate, as may best suit their wishes, inclinations, or conve nience ; but the present are not the times in which such indulgence can be legitimately granteel. In the course of the present week, some of the most im portant motions which were ever brought before the consideration of the Commons in England will be dis cussed and debated, and, in consequence, it behoves every representative of the people, and every true friend of Reform, to be present in his place, from day to day, and from hour to hour, without relaxation -or intermis:iion. We are not aware whether the Govern ment has or has not intimated_ to the supporters of its measures the necessity of constant personal atten dance ; but whether it has or has not, we shall, assuredly, not hold that man guiltless who shall ab sent himself, whether in. consequence of private or public engagements, from any discussion or any vote, implicating the rights, the privileges, or the benefits of the community, during the present or the next week. The questions to be discussed are most important : and we beg to remind Hon. Members who may be in clined to shroud their opinions in the mist of absence, that the day of dissolution and reckoning may be at no great distance, and that the plea of absence may avail them but little in that time of trial.—Morning Aa'v rtiscr. We collect from the Morning Chronicle that the Cabinet is not so cordial and unanimous as to give wuch promise of longevity. What surprised us was, that among a body of British Noblemen and gentle men there should not have been some individuals to whom the slavery in which they have all along been held by Mr. O'Connell had become intolerable many months ago. The taste and judgment of our contem porary are, it seems,, different from ours. He is sur prised and indignant that even now any Members of the Melbourne Cabinet should prove restive in the piing and odious harness which yokes them to the Agitator's car. We wish the Morning Chronicle would be a little more explicit, and inform us which are the Members of the Administration who haveho nourably distinguished thems6lves from their baser colleagues, by affording occasion to the following ad * moult ion The Tories would no doubt be rejoiced to see the Re formers at variance among themselves ; but Reformers will be careful to avoid such courses as might have a tendency to afford that satisfaction to their opponents. The most dan gerous enemies are those of a man's own house ; and the pretended Reformer who shapes his conduct so as to pro mote the views of the Tories ought to be unmasked without scruple or delicacy. We care not how high or exalted the parties may be from whom mischievous advice may come ; they must be treated according to their deserts. if those whose names we have been accustomed to asso ciate with the proudest exertions in favour of liberty should sully their / fair fame by indulging in unworthy jealousies, care must be taken that the cause of Reform be not sacri ficed from any delicacy to individuals. History will do justice to their services in the cause of liberty ; it is our part to see that a reputation obtained by these services may not be turned against the people." But we suspect that the Chronicle cannot be more explicit if it would ; that it is only half trusted by its masters—told, perhaps, that all is not right in the House, and that somebody must be bullied—and then, venturing without instructions to guess at the parties to be assailed, guesses wrong. We cannot regard the following as anything more than a mere blunder of our contemporary : ‘c The language of Lord Holland and Lord Lansdowne forbids our entertaining for a moment the suspicion that they will abandon the high ground they have taken, and lay the Commons prostrate at the feet of the Peers. We can not suppose that they will disappoint the expectations of the people. They must know even that were they them selves disposed to forget what is due to their own reputa tion and the character of the House, their recommendation would be indignantly spurned by a great body of Reform Members, and that the duration of a Ministry reduced to rely for support on its political opponents must be brief in , deed."—Morning Post. We are happy to perceive in sundry quarters some indication of a break between the more respectable members of the present Administration, and the ultra- Radical party. We are not surprised that matters have come to this point, considering the disgraceful lengths to which Mr. O'Connell has of late endea voured to push his peculiar views, and the public opi nion of the connection between Mr. O'Connell and the Government. Although the language of some of the Ministers respecting the amendments of the Lords to the Irish Corporations' Bill seemed to be but too much in the O'Connell key, we deem it to be very possible that the leisure of the recess has given rise to a calmer estimate of the state of public affairs, and that the firmness of the greatest personage in the realm has had the happy effect of producing some re solutions on the part of those in his confidence, which will give as much satisfaction to the well-disposed and constitutionally liberal people of these kingdoms, as they will disappoint and enrage the revolutionary faction. To the symptoms of this satisfactory disappointment and agreeable rage we at present wish to draw some attention. A daily Journal, which is often called Ministerial," but which seems to borrow both its sen- • timents and its style more from Mr. O'Connell than from any recognised director of Government affairs, contains the followin ,, very significant allusions to what it evidently apprehendsa may be the Ministerial course with respect tc the Agitator's notice of motion against the House of Lords. Our readers are aware that Mr. Grove Price proposes to have that notice ex punged from the Journals of the . House of Commons. AVe cannot anticipate the possibility of any honest Reformer supporting the insulting proposition of Mr. Grove Price, which, if agreed to, would grievously lower the House of Commons in the estimation of the country. The Tories would, no doubt, be rejoiced to see the Re formers at variance among themselves ; but Reformers will be careful to avoid such courses as might have a tendency to afford that satisfaction to their opponents. The most dangerous enemies are those of a man's own house, and the pretended Reformer, who shapes his conduct so as to pro mote the views of the Tories, ought to be unmasked with out scruple or delicacy. We care not how high or exalted the parties may be from which mischievous advice may come ; they must be treated according to their deserts. If those whose names we have been accustomed to asso ciate with the proudest exertions in favour of liberty, should sully their fair fame by indulging in unworthy jea lousies, care must be taken that the cause of Reform bu not sacrificed from any delicacy to individuals. History will do justice to their services in the cause of liberty ; it is our part to see that a reputation obtained by these services may not be turned against the people." We could almost suppose the above very ill-written rhodomontade to be the work of Mr. O'Connell him self. Its affectation of not anticipating the very thing which it manifestly does anticipate—its odd, and some• what Irish distinction between " high" and "exalted" —its rancourous allusion to " unworthy jealousies," meaning jealousy of Mr. Daniel O'Connell, all seem to indicate that the precious production, if not his own, is that of one quite imbued with that spirit, at once swaggering and pitiful, of which he is the great public representative. At all events, such a paragraph as this, coming from the principal newspaper organ of the reckless movement party, and intimating so plainly an alarm that persons of high consideration have with respect to the operations of that party, cried a halt, cannot but be considered important, and, so far as that alarm may be considered to be well founded, cannot but be satisfactory to the friends of Consti tutional freedom and moderate measures. There is another point of view in which this paragraph deserves consideration, and might afford a useful lesson to those who, while they support the liberal Administration of the Monarchy, have no intention of going to such lengths as will leave no Monarchy to support. Accord ing to the political doctrine of the above manifesto, all remembrance of services in the cause of the Radi cal party is to be cancelled the moment that any out rage of that party, or its chief, is not acceeded to. Whatever may have been done by independent men for the cause of Catholic Emancipation, or of Parlia mentary Reform, or any of the measures which Mr. O'Connell has from time to time described as all im portant, the moment that any desperate extravagance of his, which revenge may prompt, or the necessities of his position cender desirable to him, is opposed, these men are to be treated " without scruple or delicacy." We have long been aware that this was actually Mr. O'Connell's method of dealing with former friends who did not choose to go all lengthst with him, for what he thought his advantage; but we scarcely expected to see this flagrant tyranny of purpose so openly avowed. But must refer to another " symptom" of the dreadful apprehension which reigns in the Radical camp. The same organ of O'Connellism, when dis coursing of the probable treatment of the Irish Corpo tions Bill by the Ministry in the House of Commons, says— " We cannot suppose that they will disappoint the ex pectations of the people. They must know, even that were they themselves disposed to forget what is due to their own reputation, and the character of the House, theii re commendation would be indignantly spurned by a great body of Reform Members, and that the duration of a Ministry reduced to rely . finr support on its politicut ohpo nen , s must be brief indeed." For our parts, we " cannot suppose," that, if the writer of the above did riot look forward with alarm to the disappointment, which he disclaims, he would have thought it expedient to say any thing about it ; and so far are we front believing that. the duration of the present Ministry would be shorter, in consequence of adopting moderate measures, and trusting to Conser vative support, and rejecting extreme measures and Radical support, that we feel perfectly convinced that the present Ministry cannot continue to exist, except by choosing the former of the?ie courses. The nation is weary of Mr. O'Connell and his desperate attempts ; and unless the Administration swings clear of him, its shipwreck is certain. Since writing the above, our attention has been drawn to the proceedings of the House of Commons on its re assembling, and we find amongst those proceedings that Mr. Grove Price has, withdrawn his notice, in consequence of some techniCal informality, and 'that Lord John Russell has actually announced hiS inten tion of opposing Mr. O'Connell in his attack upon the House of Lords. We shall conclude by simply referring to this confirmation of our previous infe rences. The Ministers have now declared, through the mouth of their ostensible Representative in the House of Commons, that Mr. - O'Connell travels too far and too fast far them. Having found that out, at last, it remains to be seen whether they will have the boldness to cut the connection altogether, or whether, as was once done with the Catholic question, they will content themselves with resolving that the extinction of the House of Lords is not JCabinet question, but one of those indifferent propositions which may be taken up or laid down at will, without affecting either the ties of party, or the harmony of the existing Go v ermnen t.—Morn ing Herald. As we anticipated, Mr. Grove Price thought it most. advisable to withdraw his motion for the erasure of Mr. O'Connell's notice from the list of notices in the House cf Common\ The Hon. Gentleman stated that a technical difficulty alone prevented his following up his motipp. Mr. O'Connell rose and said that no technical difficulty should prevent hint from introducing a motion which he was sure the people of England would support on its own merits. Mr. G. Price ex plained, that what he meant by a technical difficulty was, that in addition to any other considerations, it would still be competent to Mr. O'Connell to bring forward his motion after the erasure of the notice, the said notice being , merely a matter of form for the convenience of the House generally, and in no way affecting the right of any Member to submit the subject so announced. For our own parts, anxious as we are that Mr. O'Connell should bring this question to an issue which must be triumphantly satisfactory to the friends of good government, we see little reason to regret the withdrawal by Mr. Grove Price of even the appearance of any designs to obstruct the designs of the demagogue. But, as the scion of the house of Russell incidentally delivered, if not his deliberate opinions, at least his possible meaning on this question, we shall bestow a moment's attention upon the miserable views of this Minister, Lord John Russell's treatment of this grave constitutional question, which thus came be fore him as a Minister of the Crown, may be defined as blending: , the dullest attempt - at wit with the dingiest 0 perception of constitutional law. The Noble Lord, in his facetiousness, was pleased to declare that it would be a slight on the bench of Bishops, whose claims to sit in the Upper House of Parliament had been dis cussed in the Commons, if the general constitution of the assembly were pronounced beyond the deliberative powers of the popular branch of the Legislature. Lifting hhnself to an unparralleled height of pleasantry, though not encouraged by the smiles of even his adherents, he stated in addition that he had no doubt of Mr. Grove Price having received instructions from the Right Rev, Prelates to avoid subjecting them to so dis • agreeable distinction. So much for the wit of the Noble Lord. His constitutional learning is of much the same quality. He argued that because the House of Commons had discussed the question to regulate the succession to the throne, therefore they were entitled to deliberate on the destruction of the peerage. We shall certainly not waste the time of our readers b y arguing against such t rans p arent- non sense ; but we shall con tent ourselves with proving that the Noble Lord is as consistent as he is profound, for he declared in the House that though they had a right to regulate the higher branch of the Legislature, he should vote against Mr. O'Connell's motion for the exercise of that presumed right. Verily we have wise and high principled rulers I—Times. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, MAY 31, 1836. MADRID. MAY 19.—1 n the Procuradores yesterday Senor Cantero, a leading merchant of Madrid, put some searching questions to the Government upon the state of its finances, drawing a la mentable picture of the ruin that would fall upon the holders of stock in the funds (both Spanish and Foreign holders) by the alarming fall of the last eight-and-forty hours. The amount of the loss to the holders he estimated at 216,000,000 of reals —about 2,160,0001. sterling. The reckoning he made in the following manner : Reals. A fall of 8 per cent. on 723 millions of vales no e onsolidados A like fall of 8 per cent. on 911 millions of ne gotiable 5 per cents. Fall of 3 per cent. on the debt without interest, the capital of which is 2,422 millions Fall of 2 per cent. on the 4 and 5 per cent stocks, amounting to 700 millions 14,000,000 72,660,000 Total loss to the creditors of the State 216,380,0 00 He also asked if the Government possessed means of meeting the obligations upon it which had arrived in Madrid on the 14th, and which, if not paid, would lead to a general refusal throughout the country to take any Government bills, the ef fect of which upon the army it would be impossible to calcu late. He also remarkcd•upon the absence of all allusion to public credit in the circular or programme issued by Senor Isturitz upon his acceptance of off►ce ; observing, that the maintenance of public credit having been a principal object with the late Government, the omission of that topic, and the known sentiments of the new Ministry against the decree for the sale of national property, which was destined to the liqui dation of the public debt, would give rise to serious apprehen sions throughout Spain and in foreign countries. In the ex isting state of the country, he said it would be impossible to go on without a foreign loan ; but if confidence did not revive, a loan could only be contracted upon ruinous terms, such as the Cortes could never agree to. Senor Isturitz answered, that the existing Ministry was not responsible for the fall in the funds, which depended upon the opinions of the speculators, not upon any acts of the Govern. ment. He said he could give no answer to the questions put to him, because the Government having been only just formed, had not yet met in deliberation to determine what course should be taken. ASCOT RACES.—A paragraph is going the rounds of the papers, to the effect that the magistrates of the district have adopted measures to prevent low gambling. Why is the prohibition limited to low gambling? Would it not be quite as proper to prevent, as far as practicable, high as well as low gambling ? Was it to the effects of low or high gambling, that the life of the Hon. Berkeley Craven was sacrificed? The plain truth is, that gambling in England is peculiarly an aristocratic vice ; but like other vices, being capable of pro pagation, it is sometimes seen also amongst the people. Not withstanding all the conventional cant on the subject of gam bling, it is perfectly well known that play, both low and high, is not only one of the chief amusements of " gentlemen," but that it receives the most flattering marks of distinction from many of the greatest names in the Peerage. Nothing for instance, is more common—it is seen every day—than for Noble Lords to be found in close and familiar conversation, in the public streets and at Tattersall's, with notorious gambling house-keepers. It is evident that the effect on public morals produced by seeing this sort of intimacy between our heredi tary law-makers and the blacklegs and Thurtells who live by play (which is but another name for plunder) must be most in jurious. The aristocracy would do well to, at least, veil this vice a little, as they do some other pleasarit vices, in the repeated practice of which they possess a proud pre-eminence over the lower classes. RUE.—Rue, as it is observed in Martyn's Miller, was anciently named herb-grace, or the herb of grace; and it is to this day called ave-grace in Sussex, in allusion, doubt less, to Ave Maria, gracice plena; and it is remarkable that Mary, in Hebrew, means bitter. Warburton says that rue hied its name, "herb of grace," from its having been used in exorcisms. Ophelia, in Shakspear's Ilundet, says to the Queen, " There's rue for you, and here's some for me ; we may call it herb of grace o'Sundays." Herb of grace was, indeed, the common name for rue in Shakepcare's time; and Greene, in his Quip for an Upstart Courtier, has this pas sage Some of them smiled, aid said rue was called herb grace, which, though they scorned in their youth, they might wear in their age, and that it was never too late to say miserere.' 2 Rue and marjoram arc both evergreens, retaining their ap pearance and taste during the whole year, and therefore are proper emblems of remembrance and grace. Rue seems to have been used formerly in nosegays for the Clown in nll's Well that Ends Well, having said of the Countess, " She was the sweet ma' joram of the salad, or rather the herb of grace," Lafeu replies, They are not srlad herbs, you knave, they are nose herbs ;" upon which the Clown, in character, remark, " I am no great Nebuchadnezzar, Sir, I have not much skill in grass,"—thus punning upon the name of grace, as the Gardener in Richard 11. did upon the other name of rue. - - -Arboretanz Britannicum. SINGULAR ACCIDENT.—AII accident of a most singular description happened a day or two since in Broad street, Bloomsbury, to -a respectable elderly female named Meredith, who was passing along about two in the afternoon, just at the moment that the Shannon (a Paddington omnibus) was galloping by in the - direction of the city, in opposition to another omnibus, which was proceeding in the same direction at the same furious rate, when just as they arrived opposite the shop of Mr. Gurney, situated No.. 44, in the aboee street, one of the horses belonging to the Shannon threw a shoe with such astonishing force that it actually flew up against the second floor window of Mr. G.'s house, and broke two panes of glass, and in its descent it struck Mrs. Meredith with such force on the head as to fracture her skull. She was immedi ately lifted up and carried into the shop of Mr. Jones, surgeon, at the corner of Holborn and Drury-lane, who afforded her every assistance; after which, she was conveyed to her home, Smart's-buildings, Holborn. SABBATH BREAKING.—A most appalling acci dent has taken plaice in the neighbourhood of Whitchurch. On Sunday morning, the 15th inst., T. Woodall and W. Edge, went, with some companions, to take young rooks by climbing trees ; Woodall proceeding with one party to Iscoyd, in Flintshire, and Edge, with another party, to Wirswall, in Cheshire, each place about two miles from Whitchurch. At about the same hour of the Sabbath morning they both fell from the trees which they had climbed : Woodall died instantly, and Edge, in endeavouring to go from one tree to another, met with a similar fate ; the branch broke, he fell to the ground, and never spoke more I It is a most singular circum stance that 'Woodall went out to shoot small birds on Christ mas-day last, that the gun buret and dreadfully disfigured his face, and otherwise injured him ; on the Ascension Sunday he is no more, from a more appalling accident.— Chester Courant. From the observations of Mr. Brainston, .at the North Essex Conservative Dinner, the Members favourable to sericulture intend to muster strongly when the question of the Newspaper Stamp Duty comes before the House.—Chehns fhrd Chronicle. —[lf the Tory landlords should he foolish enough to expose the naked factiousness of their aims by any such proceedings as are here spoken of, they will add to the crime of perpetuating a tax upon the bread of the people, for their own private advantage—the folly of attempting to arrest the progress of knowledge by fixing a prohibitory duty on the vehicles by which it is conveyed. Both the Bread Tax and the Newspaper Tax ought to come off. The Corn Laws in flict a grievous wrong on the public, whilst Newspaper duties deny a most important right to the country at large.l DESTITUTION.—On Tuesday night, about eight o'clock, a man was found by Mr. Calvcrly, farmer, in a cowhouse belonging to him, about a mile from the village of Seriven. He was partly covered up with hay,'and was dead. A paper was pinned to his waistcoat, containing the following, written in an .excellent band :—" Whoever discovers my mi serable remains, must be so good as to take very particular care of the violin, books, papers, &c., and give them to my brother when he comes. You must write, informing him of the sad occurrence—his address is Mr. Joseph Dawson, Ovington, near Newcastle, Northumberland.' lam William Welton Dawson. May 12th, 1836." Among the papers were two letters, written by the deceased, to his sisters at Burdon, near Sunderland, informing them of his intention to destroy himself. The letters breathe the most fervent religious sen timents. The reason assigned by him for destroying himself is, that he was " a little in debt," and unable to bear life se parated from his sisters. Amongst the papers are some ma thematical calculations roughly penned, evidently in his hand writing, and some pieces of poetry, in a melancholy strain, and written in pencil. From these it would appear that a disap pointment in an affair of the heart had no small share in un- L tn oal Laudanum." u eon d npn a insnuou some scut* his mind. The handkerchief also contained a razor, and a bottle fer fooTmr e l h a ,te l e hrh e en l u l et e wt ; hen acs ' dt ; penny e r i e n Ha g de h a e l foundinfaoddr before that t H h ee daydied e a d y b . to death. —Halifax Express. The proceedings of the Bath Friendly fur nish decisive evidence that there is a machinery now in ex tensive operation which will rapidly restore to that most valu able of all the classes of which the community is made up, that honest and laudable pride, and that noble British feeling of independence which the late abominable system of the old Poor Law had nearly obliterated and extinguished. The be nevolence of Henry the Fourth, of France, yearned for the happiness of his people, but so slender was his i n t e ll ec t ua l light that he was sat isfied with " wishing that there was a fowl in the pot of every peasant in the kingdom." Now had the good Monarch directed his utmost royal power to achieve this physical object, he would have assuredly failed. The poor man must be capacitated to provide his own fowl, if he is to enjoy it often. The kind-hearted King would have given the fowl, if he could, and often repeated the dole, and thereby de graded the character of the whole people. Such providing for the poor, without money, what money would purchase, is just the characteristic of the hateful old Poor Law. Such undertaking to do everything for them—to clothe them—to feed them—and to educate their children—is the bane of all wholesome exertion.—Bath Herald. At six o'clock on Saturday the annual pageant of mail coaches took place, followed by the mail carts and postmen's accelerators. The coachmen, guards, drivers, and postmen and postboys, were attired in their new scarlet and gold dresses ; new horses pranced in new harness, and what with the outriders, the animating notes of the bugles, and the ap plause of the numerous spectators, a very lively scene was pre sented. In passing St. James s Palace, their Majesties and suite beheld the interesting spectacle from the portico window of the Queen's House, and appeared to be much gratified by the sight. The populace here gave expression to their feelings in loud cheers. There was also a long procession of new om nibuses belonging to the " London Conveyance Company." They were handsome carriages, painted dark green, with gold letters, drawn by capital cattle, and the drivers and conductors attired in green liveries edged with scarlet. IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN T HOUSE OF LORDS, Mir 30. Petitions praying for the better observance of the Sabbath were presented by the Earl of Bandon, Lord Hatherton, Lord Harewood, and Lord Dundas. The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from the Archdeaconry of Durham, against the alteration of the Church Property Bill. Lord \VHARNCLIFFE presented petitions against the North Midland Railway Bill from York. Lord LONDOND ERR Y presented apetition from Sunder land, in favour of the Great Northern Railway Bill. Although he presented the present petition, he thought it would be ad visable to postpone the Bill till the next Session, as he doubted very much whether the proposed line would, upon reflection, be considered the best.—( Hear, hear.) He had a great interest in oppoaing the Bill , as t h e line now proposed, would pass through one of the most beautiful estates he possessed ; but still he would not put private interest in competition with public good. Mr. BERNAL, and other Members of the House of Com mons brought up the Imperial Continental Gas and several other Bills. JEWISH DISABILITIES. Lord HATHERTON presented a petition from Clithero n favour of the removal of Jewish Disabilities. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented a similar petition from Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice that on moving the second reading' of the Staffordshire Indemnity Bill on Tuesday next, he should move that Counsel should be heard at the Bar. The NOBLE MARQUIS also gave notice, that on Thursday, the 9th of June, he should move the second reading of the Catholic Marriages Bill. SCOTCH ENTAIL BILL. On the motion of the Earl of ROSEBERY, the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Scotch Entail Bill was discharged, and the Bill was referred to a Select Committee. The Orkney Seaman's Fund Bill went through a Com mittee, and the other Bills on the table were alvanecd a stage, after which the House adjourned. _HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mir 30. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock. Mr. SAMPSON brought up the Report of the Trustees for Building Churches. Mr. CRAFER presented papers from the Treasury. KILKENNY ELECTION. The SPEAKER informed the House that he had received a petition from the Clerk of the Hanaper, complaining of an undue return for the city of Kilkenny. The petition was ordered to be taken into consideration on the Ist of June. GLOUCESTER WATER-WORKS. On the motion of Mr. HOPE, this Bill was read a second time. MANCHESTER AND SALFORD CANAL. Mr. M. PHILLIPPS brought up the Report of the Com mittee on this Bill., On the motion of the same Hon. Mem ber, the Imperial Continental Gas Bill was read a third time and passed. Mr. E. J. STANLEY presented a petition from the ship owners of the port of Liverpool, praying that they might be excused from paying the dock dues, and that their vessels might be allowed to lie below the docks. Mr. R. sTEUART presented a petition from the pilots of Folkestone (we believe), relative to the Dover Harbour Bill, which was referred to the Committee. IRISH CHURCH. Lord STANLEY wished to know from the Noble Lord (the Secretary for Ireland), in the absence of the Secretary for the Home Department, whether it was the intention of the Government on Wednesday to move the second reading of the Irish Tithe Bill ? Lord MORPETH was understood to reply in the affir- mative. Lord STANLEY gave notice that, in that case, he would move, as an amendment, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to convert tithe composition into a rent charge, for its redemp tion, and far the better distribution of the church revenues of Ireland.—( Loud cheers from the Opposition.) • DUBLIN ELECTION. Mr. O'CONNELL, in moving the Order of the Day for resuming the debate on the subject of the petition which he had presented, which was in substance, though not in form, an election petition, wished to call the attention of the House to the state of the facts. At the last Dublin Election, two gentlemen were returned as duly elected. A petition was presented from certain electors against that return, praying for a scrutiny, and the substitution of the defeated candidates. To that petition the defeated candidates were no parties—it was merely the petition of electors. On that petition being presented it was referred to a Committee, who determined that the evidence should be taken in Dublin. When the Committee came to this determination the evidence must be taken before a Commission appointed under the Act enabling Committees to send Commissions to Ireland. The Commissioners ap pointed by the Committee were bound to limit and confine the point on which evidence was to be given. The Committee among the limitations made on that occasion, made the 16th rule in the words which he would read to the House. It was as follows : " That no recriminatory evidence be admitted against the defeated candidates, except as far as regards the disqualification of voters, they not being petitioners, nor any parties before the Committee." He had called the attention of the House to the fact that the petitioners had disclaimed the candidates as parties ; that they called on the Committee to decide they were not parties, and to draw the inevitable inference that no evidence could be given affecting them personally ; and the Committee had accordingly unanimously so decided. Now, upon these facts there was not the least doubt that the petition prayed a substitution and a scrutiny; that it charged bribery and intimidation on the part of the sitting Mem bers; that the statements:on the other hand retorted those char ges, and the petitioners came forward before the Committee, and insisted that the Committee should determine that the unsuccessful candidates were not parties before them, and that consequently the evidence should be so limited.- The unsuccessful candidate remained scaithless completely, and no evidence could be adduced against them. There was no exaggeration of that fact, because a Member of the House had stated that that distinction had been distinctly come to and acted upon by the Committee. He had only one more fact to state, and that was, that there were eight persons struck off the poll, for having been promised money before they voted, for their votes, and having been subsequently paid for their votes after they had voted. The fact, therefore, of bribery having existed was so clear that it could not be disputed. The facts which would bring that bribery home personally to the now sitting Members were equally clear; so that if the House was compelled to decide, this evidence was not to be gone into, it might suppose the case of sitting Members having given these bribes themselves, _having actually made the promise, and performed the promise, and yet that was a case in which there was no kind of remedy whatever. Some of those persons who opposed the motion on this ground, might perhaps one day fill the highest judicial offices, and would it not be considered monstrous if such doctrine was to to be held by them in their official capacity ? He would only refer the House to the statutes under which this decision had been read. The case turned upon two acts. The 9th Geo. IV. cap. 32, and the 42d Geo. 111. cap. 106. This was the Statute which gave legal power to appoint Commissions the words of which he would just read to the House. The Hon. Member then read the clause. By this clause the Committee were empowered to appoint limitations with respect to the facts which the Commissioners were to try. The Com mittee accordingly, acting under the powers of this clause, limited the inquiry as to the fact by excluding evidence upon the point to which he had referred.—( Hear, hear.) He would then come to the 9th Geo. IV., which was said to be the perfection of legislation.—( Hear, hear.) It was al leged that this statute made the decision of the Committee final, and that therefore no more evidence could be let in against the parties. Could any proposition be more monstrous ? The clauses enacted that the Committee were to decide whe ther the petitioners or the sitting Members were duly elected, and that such a decision should be final between the parties. The House was now called upon to declare that the decision of the Committee was to be final between persons who were no parties before the Committee. The Committee bad decided that the present sitting Members were no parties before them, and refused, upon that ground to hear evidence against them. He hoped, therefore, that party spirit would never induce that House to depart so far from what was the clear intention of the Legislature. The Legislature stopped there, and now it was attempted to carry the principle much further by construction. This Act was called the per fection of legislation. Now, what did the Act say ? provided that 11 Members should be chosen as a Commit- tee. The II were to retire and choose a Chairman, and then it provided that, in case those eleven should vote equal—( A laugh)—there was a statute for them.—(Much laugh ter.) He contended that the 40th section did not include the present case—it expressly excluded it, and there was no ground why the petition of his (Mr. O'C.'s) hate constituents, or those who voted for him—they certainly did not vote for the present Members—should not be received—why a Committee should not be appointed, and an investigation had, as to who committed the bribery. There had been an allegation of bribery against him, and the witness who had been produced to sustain it was now under sentence for perjury : that was a tolerable refutation ofthe charge. All the pe titioners dcsiredwas invcstigation,and it was the duty of the House to inquire whether the bribery happened by accident, or whether there had been hands to set it in motion. That investigation might not be very convenient for—he did not allude to the sitting Members—but a gentleman of the Irish bar, whose hand-writing made a portion of the evidence by which some of the voters had been struck off.—( Hear, hear.) It might also be inconvenient for some persons on that side of the water, for thousands do not fly over without some persons to send them across. He had confined himself to the very point before the House, and the only question was whe ther the statute carried it so far. It had been as serted that the Canterbury case was a decision against him. What was decided in that case? That the petitioner ought to • have been returned, and that the sitting Member was not duly elected. Now he would ask, ought any man to have been returned who was not duly elected ?—( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) If he (Mr. O'Connell) were in a Court of Jus tice, he would laugh to scorn the pitiful chicanery that made such a distinction, and would consider such a decision final and conclusive between the parties.—( Hear.) He admitted that this was not a final decision, because it did not include all the particulars. But it did not follow that this decision was a decision under the Act. The Canterbury case met this. There was a class of cases that did not come within the finality of the statute, and this was one of them. He had laid the case of these electors before the House, and he trusted that there could be no reasonable doubt that the House would take care that what ought to be investigated should be investigated. He did not of course suspect that either of the gentlemen the defeated candidates had themselves bribed, but there was no doubt that bribery existed, whatever doubt there might be as to the quarters from whence the money came. That money had been found by some party was perfectly clear, and the only question was, whether under the circumstances, the House would send back the petition to the Committee to review their decision ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that this peti _ _ _ tion could not be received. He had felt it his duty most at tentively to consider the case, and he felt no difficulty in ac knowledging that it was with very great reluctance that he had arrived at this conclusion. Mr. O'CO NNE LL rose amidst tremendous cries of " Chair " and " Order," from the Opposition benches). He wished to say but one word.—( Cries of " Spoke." It would save the time of the House.—( Great uproar.) He wished to withdraw the pctition.—( Cheers from the Opposition.) He wished to withdraw the petition as, whatever his own opinion might be, the principle law officer of the Crown having pledged his legal reputation to a contrary opinion, he did not think that he (Mr. O'Connell) ought to interfere. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that his opinion went for nothing, and he was, therefore, anxious that it should be contradicted or corroborated by that of the chair.—( Hear. ) The SPEAKER said this was a qsestion of great importance, and he felt difficulty in stating his opinion upon it. It divided itself into two points. When an election took place it was competent for the electors or the unsuccessful candidates to present a petition ; but in any case it was to be considered that the electors were the substantial parties, whether the petition presented claimed the seat or not—whether it was the petition of electors or unsuccessful candidates, it was quitd competent in either case for the Committee to come to a conclusion, that the unsuccessful candidates had a right to be returned as duly elected.—( Hear, hear, hear.) If this was true it followed that on a question affecting the right of either party to his seat, the whole of the facts ought to be brought under the consideration of the Committee. How could the Committee conscientiously make their report, if they shut out any part of the evidence—they could not give a proper decision unless every part of the evidence affecting the right of either party was duly considered and discussed. The - Right lion. Gentleman referred at some length to the petition 'presented in 1833, complaining of the return made for Southampton respecting the question how far the decision was to be considered a final decision ; he was of opinion that it must be taken as final. The determina tion of the Committee, embodied in the 16th Resolution, ap peared to him to be unfortunate and erroneous, but the Report stated that there was no evidence of bribery to affect the sitting Members. Then arose the important question, what was it fit for the House to do, supposing it to concur in the opinion that the Committee had been in error as he had pointed out ? He was only discharging the duty which he owed to the House, when he stated that he was of opinion that prin ciple ought to prevail against particular circumstances. While he stated this opinion, he must at the same time say, that the House ought to take measures to guard against a re currence of a similar act.—( Hear, hear.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that after the very clear explanation of the law which had fallen from the Speaker, ABERAVON HARBOUR. Mr. VIVIAN brought up the Report of the Committee on this Bill. On the motion of the same Hon. Member, the Marlborough and Salisbury Road Bill was read a third time and passed. SOUTH PETIIERTON INCLOSURE. On the motion of Mr. A. SANDFORD, this Bill was read a second time, as was also the Farrell Navigation Bill. POOR LAWS. _ Sir E. WILMOT- presented a petition from the medical practitioners of Warwick, complaining of the present mode of tender by the Poor Law Commissioners as insufficient and unjust. JEWISH - EMANCIPATION. Mr. ROBINSON presented a petition from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Worcester, in Common Council assembled, in favour of the emancipation of the Jews. The city which he had the honour to represent had set an ex ample under the Reform Bill, which was deserving, of imitation. GRANT TO MAYNOOTH COLLEGE. Mr. T. GLADSTONE presented a petition from the three Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, com plaining of the class of books used by the College of May nooth, as grossly indecent, and calculated to debase and corrupt the human mind ; the petitioners prayed that no further grant should be made to this institution, and as the subject stood for this night, he (Mr. Gladstone) felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to the petition which he had now the honour to present, emanating, as it did, from sources well entitled to the consideration of the House. Sir R. B ATE SO N presented several petitions on the same subject from parishes in the north of Ireland. The petitioners also expressed their satisfaction at the contemplated alteration in the Act for regulating the retail of spirits in Ireland, com monly called Perrin's Act. There were some provisions of the intended Bill which the petitioners highly approved of, namely, shutting up the public houses during the Sabbath Day, and confining all those .found drunk in the streets—the provisions of Perrin's Act had been productive of the greatest immorality, vice, and drunkenness. He hactalso another class of petitions on the same subject , praying that grocers might not be allowed to sell spirits. The petitions, which were from Antrim, White-house, Bangor, county of Down, Coleraine, county of Londonderry, and other places in the North of Ireland, were then laid on the table. The Hon. BAnosET then presented a petition from a place I in Downshire, signed by Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Presbyterians, in favour of the better observance of the Lord's Day. Lord C. FITZ rt OY presented a petition from the borough of Bury St. Edmunds, praying the House to reject the Irish Municipal Bill as sent down to the House by the House of Lords. Mr. HARDY presented a petition from a Protestant meet ing at Exeter-hall, complaining of a departure from the princi-. pies of the Constitution on the part of the House in many of its late Acts. They took notice of the Acts for the relief of the Dissenters—of the Catholics; and there they found that those to whom power was granted were, under the obligation of an oath, bound not to do anything which would disturb or weaken the Protestant relicrion as by law established in 1688—they had taken pains to find out what those princi ples were, and they found that it was a firm protest against the doctrines of the Church of Rome, which were then held to be idolatrous and hateful ; yet the House were in the yearly habit of making grants to Maynooth College, where those abo were to disseminate those errors received that education which fitted them for the office. They prayed that the grant may be cb:,.continuctl. Mr. BROWN presented a petition from Mayo, praying for the Total Abolition of Tithes. Mr. FRENC H presented a petition from an Irish Bar rister named O'Malley Irwin, complaining •of a verdict that had been !. - ,riven ag,ainst bins on a misdemeanour, in en dcavonring to procure himself to be elected assistant barrister. The petitioner also complained of the non attendance of Lord Hatherton, who was then Irish Secretary, at the trial. The petitioner prayed that the House would take his case into its serious consideration. He wished it to be un derstood, that before presenting this petition, he had given notice of it to his Mpjesty's Government. He could not hold himself responsible for the statements contained in the peti tion, as he had no knowledge of them ; but as the petitioner belonged to a very respectable family in the county which he represented, he thought it his duty to present the petition. Mr. O'LOGHLEN said that this petition contained a charge against the officers of his Majesty's Government. The facts of the case were these—the petitioner was indicted for forging the resignation, or what purported to be the resigna tion of Mr. Johnson, the assistant barrister of the county of Mayo, in order to get the appointment for himself. He was brought to trial under the administration of the Right Ho nourable Bart ( Sir R. Peel), and found guilty of forging the document. The petitioner applied to the Court of King's Bench to set aside the verdict—not upon the ground of his witnesses not being in attendance, but because a certain docu ment was not sufficiently brought under the consideration of the Jury. He was tried a second time, and not having made any application to postpone the trial, he was a second time found guilty, and an application to set aside the verdict having been refused, the petitioner was sentenced, and justly sen tenced, to an imprisonment for nine months. TOLCROSS GAS AND WATER WORKS. On the motion of Mr. OSWALD the Tolcross Gas and Water Works Bill was read a third time and passed. FACTORIES. _ _ . Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from Ipswich against any alteration in the present Factory Act, unless ten hours was übstituted for the present time. TITHES. Mr. PEASE presented a petition from a place in Durham praying for the abolition of Tithes and Church Rates. TRADE WITH THE CAPE COAST. Sir R. PEEL said he had a petition to present of rather a peculiar nature. It had come to him, accompanied with a letter through the Post-office, and he had no doubt of the ge nuineness of the document. The petition was addressed to the House of Commons, and was signed by the King of Cape Coast on behalf of his subjects in that country. The Prince expressed great gratitude to (11 House for the vast benefits they bad conferred on the black population of the world by the abolition of negro slavery ; the principal object of the petition was, that the House of Commons would take mea sures to secure the natives of the neighbourhood of Cape Coast Castle the benefits of free trade, or prevent the mer chants of Cape Castle from interfering to prevent the free traders of Bristol and Liverpool from affording the natives the commodities they wanted at a much cheaper rate than they (the merchants) would do. The Prince stated himself to be an ally of England, and had sent the petition to that officer who could best forward their interests.—(A laugh.) He was sure that the House would not receive the petition with levity—( Hear, hear),—as it was on the subject of the commerce of the country.—Laid on the table. TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE. Mr. HUME presented petitions from the jewellers of Clerkenwell, the hatters of the metropolis, the copper-plate printers, the society of carpenters of Holborn, the paper makers, the shoemakers, the masons of Westminster ; from certain inhabitants of London ; from Christ Church, Sur rey; from Islington ; from Aldersgate; from three Societies in Lambeth ; and from Fethard, in the county Tipperary—all praying for the abolition of stamp duties on newspapers. The petitioners regretted that his Majesty's Government had so far violated the rights of British subjects as to employ spies for the purpose of apprehending those employed in the sale and transmission of unstamped newspapers. The Here. MEMBER then presented a petition from Mr. Barber Beaumont, relative to the proposed alteration in the duties on fire and life insurances, and praying that these duties might be equalized. - - - t he the House could not do otherwise t han come to , decision which he (the eaker) had recommenued• lie entirely agreed with the Chair S in thinking it a most ua.- foFtunate decision. He could not allow that oc casion . to p without expressing an opinion which was in conformit .ss y . wnh what had fallen from the Chair, that the Committee in the decision they had made, (and he was sure they were influences by the most pure and upright motives), had committed the . greatest injury and the grossest injustice ag ainst the electorh of the City of Dublin. The Report wh ich the Com mittee had presented to that House, stated that the pre e - sent Members were duly elected, and that t he y ought to hav been returned. Now in coming to this decision, it must be inferred that all the facts and circumstances of the case had been minutely investigated ; but was it not clear to every ene that such was not the case? All the facts and circumstances had not been inquired into, and yet the present Members were declared duly elected. This decision , he must say, would operate most injuriously ; and while he entirely concurred in the decision of the Chair, he at the same time was also of opinion that steps should be taken to correct the evil. He was sure that the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite would also agree with him in the view he had taken. Mr. W YNN defended the conduct of the Committee. They had very properly restricted the parti es from giving re criminatory evidence against parties who were not before them. A Committee had power to say they wou ld g o on upon one allegation, and not upon another, which seemed to have been done here. Mr. O'CONNELL begged to call the attention of the Right lion. Gentleman to the 26 th section of the Act —_t section prevented the Committee from receiving any further evidence. Mr. RIGBY WASON contended that there was a great difference between the Southampton and Monaghan cases and the present. In both the former cases the peti tioners never attempted to prove a case of br iber y a g ainst the sitting Members—nor had they even asked the Committee to receive evidence on such a point, and it would be contrary to every principle of justice if the parties could keep in their pockets the best part of their case, and take the opinion of the Committee upon the least important part of it. The present case, therefore, differed entirely from those alluded to by the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Montgomerysh ire. What he should propose was, that the House should resolve to give to the electors of Dublin 14 days to present a petition, which in his opinion was the course pointed out by the 42c1 section of the Reform Bill. Mr. G. F. YOUNG could assure the House he deeply regretted that the illness of his Hon. Friend the Chairman of the late Dublin Committee had devolved upon him the duty of representing the Committee on the present occasion. After the opinion which had been expressed b y the and the concurrence expressed from so many quarters,it would ill become him in defending the course pursued by the Cone mittee.—(llear, hear.) Nor was it necessary fo r him to waste any portion of their time in defending the m otives of the Hon. Members who had come to that decisio n.— ( Hear, hear.) He might, however, be permitted to offer a few words in e%- planation. From the period that this decision had b een made up to this moment, it was never stated as an o b j ection that the forms of the House would preclude the petitione r from en quiry ,into the allegations respecting bribery. The conse quences of the resolution to which the Committee had come ought to have been pointed out at the time, when there woula have been an opportunity of reconsidering it. Mr. Austin, the counsel, said that he had not yet touched upon the most important part of his case, namely, the charge of bribery. The committee upon that point reserved to themselves the reconsideration of whether or not they would send t he matter _ back to the Commissioners to inquire into the b riber y part of the case on any subsequent application being made to them by counsel to that effect ; but the application was never Made' The motives of the Committee had not been impug ned ; but the legality of their decision had, as being opposed to the scut tute law. He was free to admit that he was, and he believe,' most of the Committee were, unacquainted with the statute law on the subject, but he knew they came to the decision at which they had arrived as honest and conscientious men. Their decision in this instance was certainly unfortunate in respect to its illegality, hut it was impossible to impueen the motives by which it was influenced. Mr. O'CONNELL did not rise to impugn the motives of the Committee ; but he was sorry to see the Hon. Member who had spoken last endeavour, by a sort of circumlocuti on, to fritter away the opinion and statement which he had Ole n to the House on a former night with reference to this subject' The Hon. Member said now that when the Committee cattle to the resolution restricting the Commissioners as .to the re ception of evidence Counsel ought to have told the m at the time the consequences of that decision ; but the Hon. Gene tleman forgot altogether to tell the House that the C omm itte refused to hear Counsel ; so that it was impossible the y could be told the consequences.—( Cheers.) The C ommittee had locked out the Counsel, and now the Hon. Member asked why Counsel did not inform the Committee of their errors ? Mr. Austin, the Counsel, was interrupted by the chairman, acting and speaking through the mouth of the Hon. Membe.ra He was ready to prove this at the bar of the House. lie 'lt not mean to impugn the motives of the Hon. Member, but he certainly doubted his capacity.—( Cries of " Order I") Mr. YOUNG rese, with some warmth, to comp!ain of the manner in which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had We luded to him in the first person, instead of speaking o f Committee generally. What he (Mr. Young) had don e ° were the acts of the Committee, and the Hon. and L earnsn Gentleman had no right to refer to him personally more Oa ° to any other member of the Committee. Why did not the Hon. and Learned Member explain to the House how it` that although there were many members of the Committee h°, agreed politically with the Hon. and Learned Member the.' were all unanimous in every point, as far as it concerned hie'. Was this indicative of incapacity ? As to the observatio orn to his (Mr. Young's) incapacity, it was altogether unwt hl, of an answer, and he received it with the contempt it d eserve° —( Immense cheering from the Opposition.) rt e The SPEAKER said that, in point of order, there wa s question before the House with reference to the proceediug se the Committee. Mr. O'CONNELL rose amidst universal cries of " Spel te e ' spoke," from the Opposition side, and continued for G e n tune on his legs, but from the loud cries of interruption nfe a word could be heard of what fell from him, except that:,e asked, pointing to, we believe, Lord Stanley , wa s it delic in the Noble Lord to assail him thus ? He then sat down e r parently much excited. the Mr. G. F. YOUNG also attempted again to address ,de House ; but similar interruptions from the Ministerial s' also rendered him inaudible. Another MEMBER of the Committee rose to vindicate the . s conduct of the Committee, and declared that their deeision°a influenced only by the most pure and honest motives. The petition was then withdrawn. REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS. ~_c ri„ Lord J. RUSSELL wished to know from the Hon• i o n tleman opposite (Mr. G. Price) whether it was his intet, o f to bring forward that evening his motion to have the notieerve the lion. and Learned Member for Kilkenny, with refere!x, to a change in the constitution of the House of Lords! _ U ifi g penged from the books ; or whether he would wait, and u` c o f it forward on some future day on going into a Commit te Supply ? Mr. O'CONNELL intended to move that the Ha. _ it. .., bees (Mr. G. Price's) notice be expunged from the boo ( Hear, and laughter.) • e s ten' Mr. G. PRICE said that it certainly had been his ef it, tion to bring forward his motion when he gav e notie: jos° with a view to prevent a discussion respecting the oth 13 thins' of Parliament, from which it was his conviction that he se d but evil consequences could arise. Although he not the slightest doubt of the overwhelming majorityani'; which the House would repudiate the notice whic attackunee object to have expunged from the books, and the the privileges and constitution of the other House of ra_ bo• u t ment which it designed, yet he was unwilling to bring a deliberate debate upon such a subject. Since he 11 !, ho se his notice he had been informed by some gentlemen, t t ee judgment and opinions he was at all times ready to ,P e • c ' t ien; greatest deference, that there were some technical noie_ouist in the way of his [notion ; and, that being the case, he r itit ele not risk the loss of a question of such tremendous °T i e nr e. , upon a mere point of form. While he thus waved fie; r ha tl sent bringing forward his motion, for the reason be did entertal stated, he begged it to be distinctly understood thatranortot not abandon it on anrincile connected with the i E ease e, subject which it embraced; and that at a proper to in tempers et loco, he should brnig it forward, in e i _ ese i• on place upon the journals of the House the strongest exP' din of the feelings which he entertained upon t h e subje d e to ce ee He knew the dexterity of those with whom he ha turn bit!' tend, and how adroitly they would endeayour tn t hi r t round upon a point of form ; and as he looked that upon bad question to be the most important and momentou:_ac_ 16 4 ; been brought under the consideration of the House . 1 would bt he should take the necessary time to consider t tion °°. most judicious for him to pursue respecting at the same time he begged to repeat his deterrnina ba t lose sight of the object he had in view.—(Cheers.),,i_oe t Mr. 0 CONNELL begged also to assure the _1 1 .°,. had in he should not lose sight either of the object w hic a la 0 , 1 7 e 1-40 11 ', view, He knew of no technical objection topro': ti . ce• Member from bringing forward his motion, and he (x_Lettiee: was ready to meet it, whatever opinions might be en' ee or "e 7 tb s upon the subject either at the camp of Don Car oes.cided a Morning Post. The question would ultimately. b the the people of England willed that it should be. tion wa s e s it whh;raeafter ; t be to Mr. G. PRICE said that the technical objee r _ mo o difficulty of introducing his motion under the m_e ( u siip pll. 4 that might attend it on going into a Committee A ul em ber 1 7 1 , Lord J. RUSSELL was glad that the Hone, by abst a t i it received some good advice, and had listened to brongbase ing from bringing forward his motion, for had duty to, !,,P P O O 4 on he (Lord J. Russell) must have felt it his f the • •n lit it, as be intended to oppose also the motion undoubted 11 % 0 Learned Member for Kilkenny. It was the 4., stice es o sl , o of that House to entertain motions for settline:74 t h e ir to the Crown, and for reforming the Constituti a 7„ teforati D o v e House ; and also for what was called by s e n urnestitution, °cora which he would call an alteration in the s glad, t her thers , other branch of the Legislature. He f: a dvice of • the that the Hon. Member he'd listened to t . t' chare h .!. l oosc , it perhaps of the Right Rev. Prelates r t ends the " os e ' d t 'fled end i li me o r would be recollected, not long ago enter a very had c°mP tion removal of whom from the House of motion. Now he thought it would be e : e _ ined a I lot i o n to those Right Rev. Prelates to Intvee to entertain it was pre,: removing them altogethereand irtef h u the lay Lords. h a d a ... „,e that in any manner interfered w R e v : o n bably upon this ground that the lii togpersist in h . both s P e l ' a (Laughter.) As he ( Lord . .1 R of the 14c)r w° iv' cgcs • a `'that to maintain the rights and pr vised the Hon. Gentleman n j ot an -motto he should oppose y tual and temporal, f trench upon either. his notice 0 Mr, G. PRICE then withdrew Russell) was c-ty